June 29, 2006

It is the fortieth anniversary of credit cards...damn useful but I would not call them invaluable. Barclaycard issued their first plastic promise in 1966. For those who have a problem with debt, pay off the balance evry month and live within your means. Simple really!

The first breath of turbocapitalism, a lovely dynamic descriptive, vrmmm vrmmm, rev up that materialism

The campaign in Afghanistan is now recognised as a war, not as a peacekeeping operation. The continued drip drip faucet of fatalities, returning to the patria, leaves little room for misunderstanding. Yet, the government has again misrepresented the commitment and the mission of British troops, leaving the country open to the risk of overstretch and failure. NATO has argued that the failure to deal with warlordism and the 'Taliban resurgence' was due to the Iraqi peace.

A report from the Senlis Council argues that the focus on drug eradication policies, the main livelihood of many Afghan farmers, has destroyed the sympathy of the Afghans and increased the likelihood of Taliban support. Instead of providing a subsidised false market for their goods, fostering capital development amongst the farmers, a stable market governed by contract and long-term diversification into more profitable products. Instead, their answer is weedkiller...

Two SBS Special Forces soldiers, whose training costs can be counted as far higher than most, died today during a firefight in Helmand with the Taliban. These are Special Forces: they are not involved in peacekeeping duties, but on counter-terrorist activities. Nevertheless, they were using the heavily criticised but lightly armoured Land Rover.

Yesterday's casualties may stoke the controversy surrounding British
troops' use of open-topped Land Rovers, which offer limited protection.
"It's a balance of protection, mobility and risk," said Capt Gibson.
"If you drive around in fully armoured vehicles you can't talk to the
local population."

"Talking to the local population" is not the highest priority for combatting counter-terrorism, unless Special Forces had been redeployed to peacekeeping duties, an inappropriate role for their skills. We obtained the usual facile response from Blar's office:

Responding to questions about equipment available to UK forces in
Afghanistan, Tony Blair's spokesman said last night: "Let us be clear
that the very sad deaths today were down to those who attacked British
troops. We shouldn't make it any more complicated than it is. Our
thoughts are with their families."

Yes, we should, when costcutting measures by your Chancellor, Gordon Brown, affects the security of all British soldiers and rendered you partially culpable for their deaths. Sententious handwringing to dismiss a 'bad news day'. no doubt. It is a surprise that even our Special Forces are rendered more ineffective by the 'war on the cheap' mentality of the Treasury.

June 28, 2006

The Natwest Three have lost their appeal and will now be extradited to the United States under the one-sided treaty established by the Labour government. If there was one action that imported the contempt of the Foreign Office for the British abroad onto domestic territory, signing this treaty was it. Without the need for having a case, the three are viewed as "fugitives from justice" and can be locked up whilst US prosecutors assemble their case. They are designated as fugitives from justice because they fought their extradition:

The NatWest three must now leave Britain for America by midnight on
July 17. Once the three men arrive in Houston they face being locked up
in jail for two years while the case is assembled because they are
viewed by the US as “fugitives from justice” after their legal battle.

Last night, a “very shocked and very disappointed” Mr
Bermingham, who has been battling against extradition since 2001, said:
“It’s over.”
Mr Bermingham said the bankers’ fate was settled when the House of
Lords threw out their challenge to the legal status of Britain’s
fast-track extradition treaty with America.

He said: “The final nail in the coffin was the
Lords’ refusal to take the application. Once we heard that, there was a
sense of resignation. That holed us below the water line.”
Following the Law Lords’ decision, the Home Office – which made the
extradition order in May last year – allowed seven days for an
application to be made to the European Court.

Perhaps the three gentlemen are guilty, although sceptical antennae are raised when US prosecutors are still unable to present a case five years after the bankruptcy of Enron. Nevertheless, unless the US has a clear case, presentable to the British courts, no accused should be extradited into their hands. When counter-terrorist arguments are extended to white-collar crime, we know that such measures should be opposed as a threat to all of us.

This has two clear warnings: it will stoke anti-Americanism in one of the few constituencies where there was a sympathetic ear for the US, and it will undermine support for Anglospheric agencies whilst there remains asymmetric treatment for the United Kingdom by the United States. Treat a trusted ally like shit and they eventually turn around and bite!

Here is a new research project set up under the EU's funding round for nanotechnology. Following on from a paper by Dr Alain Nogaret of the University of Bath, physicists will examine whether firing electrons into magenetic fields will produce targeted microwave energy removing the need for wiring within chips.

The latest research is the first attempt to turn theory into practice. "The
work could be very important for the creation of faster, more powerful comp
uters," said Dr Nogaret.

"We can only go so far in getting more power from silicon chips by shrinking
their components. Conventional technology is already reaching the physical
limits of the materials it uses, such as copper wiring, and its evolution will
come to a halt."

Dr Nogaret added that, if this research is successful, it could make
computers with wireless semi-conductors a possibility within five or ten years
from the end of the project.

This presents one of the research projects that have become a wave bearing down on the limitatiosn threatening the ongoing march of Moore's law.

June 27, 2006

The Guardian is Free column puts forward Mike Marqusee to provide that damning "But" on the flying of English flags. There are lots of insinuations (without much evidence) that flying an English flag is racist, nativist and an insult to anyone who he can list.

England is not a nation-state or significant political unit. And
Englishness is a category vague enough to accommodate radically opposed
ideas of what being English might be. Crucially, it carries both ethnic
and national connotations. (Though the usage is increasingly contested,
being "English" is frequently a synonym for being white native-born
English.)

Some people might view these positive developments as encouraging as England becomes more pluralist. Whilst Marqusee is quick to cite imperial history as a hurdle to be overcome before we could be allowed to develop political consciousness (a hurdle that the Scottish need not recognise,) he states that England is not a nation-state. He is right: England is a state-nation, from which the British union was built.

As evidence of our incipient fascism, he cites a Rooney advert, reciting the national anthem and references to the Second World War. If this is the best that can be mustered by the Left, then there is little to worry about. More ahistorical nonsense from the LeftGuardianista killjoy here.

Nestor Kirchner, President of Argentina, has renewed the country's claims to the Falkland Islands, it is reported in the Times today. As he is now facing a serious rival in forthcoming elections, Kirchner has an interest in raising and stoking populist issues, one of which is Las Islas Malvinas. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the war falls this year. He has accused Britain of "bad faith" as we have refused to negotiate on the future of the islands, until the inhabitants wish to do so.

Argentina has turned to the UN Decolonisation Committee, aided and abetted by Chile attempting to curry favour, in order to force the issue. Through this route, Argentina hopes to deny any pesky democratic outcome, since they would never get the islands back if forced to put it to the vote:

But the Argentine Government rejects the claim that the islanders
have a right to self-determination. Jorge Taiana, the Foreign Minister,
contends that they had been “planted” on what he called “sovereign
Argentine territory”.

Earlier this month Señor Taiana spoke before the UN’s
Decolonisation Committee, pushing for the ratification of a resolution
calling for sovereignty negotiations to be resumed.

He said that Argentina was prepared to co-operate with Britain
on practical issues as long as it created the conditions to resume
sovereignty negotiations.

The committee unanimously approved a resolution from Chile
insisting that Britain should resume negotiations, and renewed its
support for the UN Secretary-General to embark on a goodwill mission
between the two countries.

There is no surprise that the United Nations Decolonisation Committee places ideology above self-determination, one of its original Wilsonian principles. The moral descent of the UN has been clear for years. A decent response to Kirchner's 'sovereignty agenda' is quite simple: no talks and a note where the second word is off!

June 26, 2006

Some may view the reporting of the boundary changes as good news, but the Tories have a better than evens chance of gaining a hung parliament at the next election on a smaller swing. The latest study shows that this could be as small as 1% compared to 1.8 % before the changes. This ensures that a hung parliament is far more likely.

This places Cameron's strategy in context. His attempts to woo the public sector professionals and rob Labour of its Blairite heresies are designed to appeal to political factions that he may need to appeal as head of a minority government. Hence, his tacking towards the centre on so many issues.

When we assess Cameron's utterances and actions, we need to see that he is building informal alliances for a possible minority government. Examining such policies as the Bill of Rights announced today, we can view this policy as a clever sop to the Tory right, who view the Human Rights Act with reactionary hunger, whilst assuaging the Liberal Democrats and the thinking crowd in Labour who remain wedded to forms of constitutional change. Cameron's speech is pitched to a dissatisfied audience at a time when public disillusionment with the Human Rights Act grows apace, and idiots defend the status quo at a time of growing insecurity.

Whilst the Tory leader argues that we should deport undesirables who threaten national security:

Cameron said one of the
most obvious ways to protect the country from terrorism would be to
deport foreign nationals who threaten national security.

"It is clear we should have the right to take away
the right to live here from people who want to do our country harm, yet
the government is finding it increasingly difficult to do this."

the enfeebled Labour Party is reduced to defending a 'human rights' agenda that has lost public support and endangered civil liberties:

But lord chancellor Lord Falconer defended the Act and claimed Cameron's solution would not solve the problem he described.

However, the Times shows that the proposal has run into professional flak as legal academics question the usefulness of a codified Bill of Rights that undermines parliamentary sovereignty and retains that link with the ECHR. Not sure about Vernon Bogdanor's point as the ECHR never stopped the French deporting anyone...

You know that this will result in less safety for the child, greater tyranny from experts interfering in family life for any number of arbitrary reasons relating to targets 'not met' and could present the death-knell for home-schooling:

Changes being introduced since Victoria Climbie's death
from abuse include a £224 million database tracking all 12 million
children in England and Wales from birth. The Government expects the
programme to be operating within two years.

But critics say the electronic files will undermine
family privacy and destroy the confidentiality of medical, social work
and legal records.

Doctors, schools and the police
will have to alert the database to a wide range of "concerns". Two
warning flags on a child's record could start an investigation.

There
will also be a system of targets and performance indicators for
children's development. Children's services have been told to work
together to make sure that targets are met.

This is the age of the database and the state loves them. Why does it love them? Because it reverses the roles of ruler and ruled in all matters. Dr. Eileen Munro of the London school of Economics begins to understand:

"They include consuming five portions of fruit and veg
a day, which I am baffled how they will measure," she said. "The
country is moving from 'parents are free to bring children up as they
think best as long as they are not abusive or neglectful' to a more coercive 'parents must bring children up to conform to the state's views of what is best'."

How long before our children wear electrtonic tags for security and the monitoring of best practice, attendance at a state recognised school, and ironing out the anarchy that we used to call 'play'.